D

Up until now, it had really been annoying me that every time a new review came out, someone had something to say about the number of stars given. But now I have to admit, i am really confused. I think if you read through a bunch of reviews without looking at the number of stars and then tried to guess the rating based on tone of the review, you’d be wrong about fifty percent of the time. The written reviews and the number of stars really aren’t lining up. I think since the star system can be so subjective, and you have different people writing reviews, we might as well just ignore the stars all together. I’m just paying attention to the paragraphs from now on.

I agree with Logan! The supposed “revamped” star rankings are confusing. Its even MORE confusing when they say GUIDELIVE PICK moniker – read the Grimaldi’s review. To summarize, pizza is ok, but its a work-in-process. How does that garner a GUIDELIVE PICK?

ijs’ post is so full of bad reasoning that it compelled a response…

QUOTE: “…everybody and his brother gets 3 stars…”

Um, it’s called a bell curve. Especially taking into consideration in Mr. Addison’s declaration that “Restaurants that we find to be below ‘fair’ aren’t typically reviewed”, 3 stars OUGHT to be the most frequent score given. And so, yes, 3 starts MIGHT INDEED BE the new 4 stars (which arose from the flaccid mess of which NN spoke). Would you be OK with 3 stars being the new 4 stars, NN?

QUOTE: “…how do you explain the volume of repeat business by customers who can afford to go anywhere?”

Huh? Is the implication that rich people wouldn’t go there if it weren’t 4- or 5-star? Is it inconceivable that among Sevy’s regulars might be some diners of the “less disposable income” ilk? Think just for a second about how ridiculous an assertion that would be, not to mention its tagging a possibly unfair elitist attitude on ij’s perceived Sevy’s customer base. Last I looked, Macaroni Grill’s parking lot, just around the corner, also looked to be packed, as was La Madeleine’s. Would you defend MacGrill as fervently as you do Sevy’s?

QUOTE: “…how long will less vociferous operators like Sevy and Chris Ward suffer with less than deserved recognition for lack of similar tempers”

This implies that throwing a hissy fit can get an operator his “proper” rating back. That’s quite an accusation in itself, no? Can you back that up? Yet that premise is the cornerstone of your implication that Sevy’s and Mercury Grill have somehow been “cheated”.

Keep in mind that, as Mr. Addison wrote, “A three-star restaurant is a place where you generally get a solid meal. The food is creative and skillfully prepared, service is sharp, the prices don’t make your wallet cry out in horror and the vibe feels right for the experience. Every once in a while, you may get a bum entree, or the noise level may drive you bonkers. Even so, it’s a place worth a return. A crucial point: Take the definitions of these star ratings at face value. A three-star rating is not a C grade. We really mean it to indicate ‘very good.’ ”

QUOTE: “…why post [stars] in the first place?”

Mr. Addison already covered that:
“Why? Because readers crave them, and reviews, above all else, are meant to be a reader service. Stars encapsulate a critic’s opinion into an easily measured and instantly recognizable medium.”

So *my* interpretation of those declarations is that stars serve as a handy crutch, of sorts, for readers with too little time or too little care to devote toward a careful reading of a single critic’s restaurant review. Maybe the DMN also thought it would help readers who are so easily frustrated by “self-agrandizing[sic] flourid[sic] rhetoric”, too. It wouldn’t be the first time the DMN made a questionable judgment call, eh?

Has anyone asked Jim @ Sevy’s and Chris @ Mercury whether *they* care about the star rating? Has it materially affected their business? Just asking…

BTW, NN, I’m with you. I don’t care for the star ratings, or “distilled” scoring in general, because of their potential to create confusion, both of the part of the judge and the reader. But I understand its merits, and I defend its use.

No town deserves its restaurants to be graded on a bell curve – if it is full of great restaurants, they all deserve to be given great ratings – if they’re bad they should be clearly identified as such, not ignored. How else is the reader to know what places the critic deems beneath the dignity of the reader’s visit?

People who can afford to eat anywhere go for the food – not for the stars, which explains why people who can afford it eat at Sevy’s and not at Mac Grill (and will continue to eat there in spite of the change in star status).

IKS – you are very astute, yes the implication is in fact that the fuss that Avner put up got him the second look. Back it up? Well, why is Avner the only chef in town who’s gotten a second review (coupled with an upgrade)?

The general reader of the DMN never saw Mr. Addison’s explanation of his star system, which may mean something to him and iks, but to the average reader or out of town visitor(who “craves them”) three stars only connotes an average restaurant. To them the fat part of the bell is a C grade. If you’re going to have a unique star system you should post it’s definition regularly. If you’re putting up stars because readers crave them, put up stars that mean something to the average reader and which are in fact “easily measured and instantly recognizable by the reader” (which does not seem to be the case with the current system). BTW, I’ve never met a chef yet who honestly doesn’t care about their ratings (Jim and Chris included).

Defending the merits and use of a defective system which creates confusion confuses me. Why not strive for something better? Why settle for less?

Star inflation is good. Might we look forward to a sushi recession? IJS, how many sushi restaurants do we need.

iks: Very thorough comment. But using its own standards, the DMN was wrong to give Sevy’s just 3 stars. As I commented on the Eats blog (sorry Nancy), based both on my experience as a customer and Kim Harwell’s review, Sevy’s meets the DMN’s definition of a 4-star restaurant: it “offer[s] some of the best dining in the area… slightly more casual [than 5-star], and you don’t have to sock away quite as many bucks to fund the experience.”
(http://eatsblog.guidelive.com/archives/2008/04/new-reviews-maya-sevys-grill-a.html#comments)